The City of Santa Ana wants to skirt state housing laws that allow residential development on sites zoned for commercial use with little input from local planners.
The Orange County city is considering filing for an exemption of eligible properties from two state housing bills so it can have more local control, the Orange County Register reported.
Both laws, AB 2011 and SB 6, include provisions that allow governments to exempt parcels of land as long as they can identify alternative sites for housing development that wouldn’t diminish residential opportunities and “affirmatively further fair housing.”
This week, City Council members were slated to vote on a resolution excusing their city from the two bills – laws that streamline housing projects in office and retail areas and aim to combat a statewide housing affordability crisis, according to the Voice of OC.
Then came a letter from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, just hours before the scheduled vote.
“We urge you to continue this item to a later date so that affected and interested parties will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the proposal,” wrote Supervising Deputy Attorney General David Pai.
The City Council backed off, and is now expected to discuss seeking the exemption on June 20.
Councilman Phil Bacerra said the city isn’t considering the exemption because it’s looking to reject state housing mandates, but because it’s already complying.
Santa Ana has fulfilled 52 percent of its state-mandated goal of building 3,137 homes less than two years into the current eight-year “housing element” plan, according to city staffers. They said Santa Ana is among just seven OC cities to have their Housing Element certified by the state.
“We’re not adversarial to the state’s mandates. We’ve been building, we’ve been fulfilling. In fact, we’ve been exceeding their mandates,” Bacerra said. “All we’re saying as a city is we would like to be exempt because it’s not really fair to say that we are not producing housing and therefore we shouldn’t be able to exercise our local control.”
In a letter addressed to the City Council, Elizabeth Hansburg, co-founder and director of People for Housing, said by moving forward with the exemption, the city would set a precedent for other, less compliant cities to do the same.
“These bills are essential tools to help solve the housing shortage and affordability crisis and undermining them sends the wrong message,” Hansburg wrote. “Perhaps even worse, it creates a terrible precedent for more ‘NIMBY’ cities to declare themselves exempt as well.”
— Dana Bartholomew
Read more
